Qfact-checker

Fact-Checker — Claim Verification Workflow

Extract factual claims from documents, reports, and articles and systematically verify them.

Verification Process

1. Claim extraction → 2. Prioritization → 3. Evidence collection → 4. Source verification → 5. Verdict → 6. Report writing

Step 1: Claim Extraction

Verification Targets

Target	Example
Factual claims	"X happened", "Y is true"
Statistics/numbers	"40% increase", "1 million people"
Dates/times	"Started in January 2024"
Citations/attribution	"A said..."
Causal claims	"X caused Y to happen"

Exclusions from Verification

• Opinions: "This policy is good/bad"
• Predictions: "In the future, X will happen"
• Preferences: "B is better than A"

Claim Extraction Template

## Claim Log

**Document:** [Source]
**Date:** [Write date]

### Claim 1
- **Statement:** [Exact quote or summary]
- **Speaker:** [Who said it]
- **Context:** [Surrounding context]
- **Type:** Statistic / Historical fact / Citation / Causal
- **Priority:** High / Medium / Low
- **Status:** Unverified / Verified / False / Unverifiable

Priority Criteria

Priority	Criteria
High	Core thesis of document, easily verifiable, high impact if wrong
Medium	Supporting evidence, requires effort to verify
Low	Peripheral details, commonly accepted, minimal impact

Step 2: Evidence Collection

Source Priority

Claim Type	Primary Source
Statistics	Original research, government data, methodology
Citations	Audio/video recordings, transcripts, direct verification
History	Contemporary news reports, official records
Science	Peer-reviewed papers, expert consensus
Legal	Court documents, official filings
Financial	Audit reports, regulatory disclosures

Evidence Strength

Evidence Type	Strength
Official documents (court records, government reports)	Strong
Original data (directly analyzable)	Strong
Expert consensus (multiple independent experts)	Strong
Named sources (direct knowledge)	Medium
Contemporary reporting (same-era news)	Medium
Anonymous sources	Weak
Social media posts	Weak

Step 3: Verdict

Verdict Grades

Grade	Criteria
True	Accurate and complete, no important omissions
Mostly True	Accurate but needs context or minor clarification
Half True	Partially accurate, key context missing
Mostly False	Some factual content but overall misleading
False	Contradicts evidence
Unverifiable	Insufficient evidence

Verdict Template

## Verdict: [Claim Summary]

**Claim:** [Exact statement]
**Speaker:** [Who]
**Verdict:** [Grade]

### Supporting Evidence
- [Evidence 1 + Source]
- [Evidence 2 + Source]

### Contradicting Evidence
- [Evidence 1 + Source]

### Missing Context
- [Context 1]

### Verdict Reasoning
[Why this grade]

### Confidence
High / Medium / Low + Reason

Step 4: Report Writing

Fact-Check Report Format

# Fact-Check Report

**Target Document:** [Title/URL]
**Verification Date:** [Date]
**Verifier:** [Name]

## Summary
- Total claims: N
- True: N | Mostly true: N | False: N | Unverifiable: N

## Key Findings

### [Claim 1] — Verdict: [Grade]
- **Original:** "[Quote]"
- **Evidence:** [Summary of basis]
- **Correction suggestion:** [If needed]

### [Claim 2] — Verdict: [Grade]
...

## Corrections Needed
| Location | Original | Correction | Reason |
|----------|----------|------------|--------|
| [Section/Line] | [Original] | [Correction] | [Basis] |

## Sources
1. [Source 1]
2. [Source 2]

Execution Rules

MUST DO

• Use WebSearch tool to verify factual claims
• Prioritize primary sources (official documents, original data)
• Actively search for contradicting evidence
• Always include reasoning in verdicts
• Honestly mark unverifiable claims as "Unverifiable"

MUST NOT DO

• Do not verdict "True" without evidence
• Do not classify opinions as factual claims
• Do not verdict "True" based on single source alone (prefer multiple sources)
• Do not skip verification and rely on intuition